Note the distinct difference in width and angle/rounding. The original artifact is obviously the result of incision by a sharp material/tool and not the result of adhesive extrusion. Any reasonable level of microscopy would confirm this.

Precisely what form of naturally-derived adhesive are you proposing that would withstand the pressure of the involved mass?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WVK 154

WVK
154

In this concluding comment, the authors are acknowledging the variabilities of sedimentary materials and the inherent weakness of their conclusions, as evidenced by Figure 1.

In summary

"Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples."

Harte
17,199

"Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples."

"It's highly stupid," he (Zahi Hawass) said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

Getting access might be a problem. Why Insulting when, if proven true, would expand the capabilities of AE

As Harte noted Hawass isn't in charge of anything - you might want to talk to Khaled El-Anany. However asking to take portions of the Great Pyramid away to destroy them probably won't get accepted. I would suggest attempting to obtain legitimate samples from other lesser structures - unless the theory says only G1 was made with concrete (say the satellites pyramids). You might also be able to obtain samples by way of universities and NGO that donate large sums to Ministry of Antiquities.

The cryptocrystalline quartz that make up the Pennsylvania jasper quarries was actually a geopolymer.

Since it was once volcanic mud during the Appalachian Orogeny we re-dissolved it using deer and elk poop then poured it into molds creating our bifaces. Then when it still had the consistency of Play-Doh, we used antler tines to press and shape the edges. The whole idea we used them for pressure flaking was wrong.

2

4

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Swede 4,705

Swede
4,705

"Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples."

"It's highly stupid," he (Zahi Hawass) said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

Getting access might be a problem. Why Insulting when, if proven true, would expand the capabilities of AE

Hawass is likely referring to the insult to the many decades of intensive research conducted by hundreds of qualified individuals. To suggest that the many specialists involved were not capable of correctly identifying the lithic materials, their detailed composition, and their original quarrying sites is indeed an insult. This is particularly true when the suggestion comes from unqualified parties with a vested interest in promoting a modern technology.

And yes, the proposition in question is "highly stupid". Rather like that phrasing.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

MWoo7 9,875

MWoo7
9,875

Time difference yeah probably reheheheeally slow lightning for sure HA! yeah I was just parroting things higher up mucky mucks have said. Pretty sure people have heard that bit going around a year or two back about how they are power-stations or some such.

Also someone had said there was evidence of amounts of COPPER taken there, but oddly NO COPPER TOOLS!?!??!!! ( okay lightning bugs works ////SARC!)

Okay and LASTLY ***&&& FINALLY and in conclusion:::::: thanks to you all that's about a rap for me on this NATURAL LIME laying around in river and creek beds and the use of non-fired anything just making a BIG MESS like some of my stupid art projects. NO REPLIES too busy laterzz keep up the goods on NON-cement works and pyramid ideas.

Edited April 7, 2019 by MWoo7

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jarocal 3,178

Jarocal
3,178

Poltergeist

Member

3,178

2,786 posts

Yea though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Furballs I will fear no feline.Thy floppy ears and thy drool they comfort me.